LSAT 130 – Section 3 – Question 07

LSAT 130 - Section 3 - Question 07

September 2009

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:43

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT130 S3 Q07
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
155
B
93%
163
C
1%
156
D
1%
154
E
5%
154
128
138
147
 +Easier 145.135 +SubsectionEasier

Researcher: The use of the newest drug in treating this disease should be discontinued. The treatment usually wreaks havoc with the normal functioning of the human body, causing severe side effects such as total loss of hair, debilitating nausea, and intense pain in the joints.

Summarize Argument

The researcher concludes that the new drug should be discontinued because it disrupts the body's normal functions and causes severe side effects.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The researcher concludes that the drug should be discontinued because of its many costs, like nausea and hair loss. However, she fails to consider the benefits of the drug or the costs of discontinuing it. For example, if the drug is the only way to save lives, then its benefits may far outweigh its costs.

A
fails to specify what is meant by “normal functioning of the human body”

The researcher doesn't define “normal functioning,” but she doesn’t need to. Even if she did define it, it wouldn’t support her argument because she still fails to consider any benefits of the drug that might outweigh the cost of disrupting “normal functioning.”

B
fails to consider the consequences of not administering the treatment

The researcher argues that the drug should be discontinued because of its many costs, but she ignores its potential benefits. That is, she fails to consider the costs of not taking the drug, which might be much more severe than nausea, hair loss, and joint pain.

C
presumes that every patient with the disease is treated with the drug

The researcher never makes this assumption. She just argues that those patients who are treated with the drug usually experience severe side effects.

D
does not consider the length of time needed for the treatment to begin taking effect

The researcher doesn't mention how long it takes for the drug to work, but even if she did, it wouldn’t support her argument because it wouldn’t address the question of whether there are benefits of the drug that outweigh its costs.

E
does not acknowledge that the effects of the treatment may not be of the same severity in all cases

The researcher actually does acknowledge this by saying that the drug “usually wreaks havoc” on patients’ bodies. Whether some patients’ side effects are less severe doesn’t affect the argument that the drug usually causes severe side effects and thus must be discontinued.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 130 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply